MovieChat Forums > Psycho (1960) Discussion > OT: "The Intruder" -- and the Sad State...

OT: "The Intruder" -- and the Sad State of the Thriller 2019 (MINOR SPOILERS)

posted 5 years ago by ecarle (14979)
24 replies | jump to latest

So I rented a recent film called "The Intruder," watched it, contemplated what it means as a thriller many decades removed from Psycho(but influenced by it) and moreso influenced by a number of films in the genre called; "The BLANK from Hell."

I'm not sure how far back this genre goes, but I'll throw a dart and guess "Play Misty for Me"(1971)...which could be entitled "The One Night Stand from Hell"(single guy division.) Leap ahead to "Fatal Attraction"(1987) and you've got "The One Night Stand from Hell"(married guy division.)

With those sexual landmarks, things move on to more generic: "Tenant from Hell"(Michael Keaton in Pacific Heights.") Roommate from Hell(Single White Female.) Boss from Hell. Secretary from Hell. Etc.

This one could be called "Former Home Owner from Hell."

The set-up: crusty old widower Dennis Quaid sells his Napa Valley, California house to a San Francisco married couple. The house has only been in Quaid's family, for generations, and he is reluctant to sell it, but he must. His wife died of cancer in the house.

The young couple move in and take over the house. They take down Quaid's tapestry and put up an abstract art painting. They redecorate. They start to make the place THEIR home.

Quaid had told the couple that he was going to move to Florida to live with his daugther's family. But he never quite leaves, takes a hotel room nearby, hangs around "his old house." Mows the lawn at the house. Makes little repairs.

Quaid is "The Former Homeowner Who Wouldn't Leave" -- aka "The Former Homeowner from Hell."

I'll leap to this point: I won't give away the spoiler but the very last minute of "The Intruder" has exactly the same ending -- and exactly the same line that finished another famous thriller (not a very good one, but a hit) from about 30 years ago. I was astonished, reading reviews for The Intruder, that NO critic noticed the blatant rip-off(I mean, its the same ending and the same LINE.) A poster at moviechat caught it...good for them(and I put the SPOILER reveal of this last line over on The Intruder board.)

To get to the rip-off finale and final line, one must truck through some predictable stuff in "The Intruder." Predictable: neither the husband nor the wife seem to pick up on how disturbed former owner Dennis Quaid is until it is way too late (and they look way too dumb), and the wife proves particularly dumb in allowing Quaid into the house alone with her while her husband is away. Predictable: somebody snoopy has to die along the way -- an Arbogast of rather obnoxious personality. Predictable: the ending.

It was all very one-note, and very stripped down -- not in that "fun" Psycho stripped down way -- but like a direct to video feature with few locations and little action.

Watching "The Intruder" for some reason I flashed back not to Hitchcock, but to "Charade," that intricate Paris-based thriller with Cary Grant and Audrey Hepburn in the leads, Walter Matthau and James Coburn in support, and the sense of a real thriller at all times -- top stars, great mystery, exotic locale. Nope , here in 2019, we get "basic" thrills,set "around the house," no real wit or depth , not much in the way of stars.

And ...the racial angle. Evil Old Dennis Quaid is white. The affluent couple he terrorizes is African-American. Tensions are expressed. Unavoidable tensions, I suppose -- the movie world of whiteness of Hitchcock's era and "Charade" are gone, and a new world is well in place. Its like the racial tension is an unspoken foundation for the suspense. I will note that neither Quaid nor the black heroes ever talk to each other in racial terms -- its as if these were generic roles that could have been cast -- on either side -- by any race.

A slight "Psycho" influence: it seems the music soundtrack in "The Intruder" remembers the screech-screech-screech of the murder scenes in Psycho all too well. There's no "screech screech screech" here -- but there ARE a massive number of sudden "musical jolt cues" all through The Intruder which seem designed to make you jump at ANYTHING(usually Dennis Qauid's sudden appearance.) Its aggravating. Hitchcock and Herrmann only triggered this music cue three times in Psycho. To do it once every three minutes is another problem.

---

As the critical reviews are attesting, Dennis Quaid makes for a great psycho -- he's got that great over-intense smile, and he moves slowly from "too friendly" to "quite scary" as his psychosis manifests. With Jack Nicholson pretty much retired, Quaid lift's Jack's wide grin and vocal mannerisms here quite a bit. He even smashes through a door(with a knife, not an axe) and peeps his head through it, though he doesn't yell "Heee're's Johnny!" One critic noted that Quaid in this film is Jack Nicholson's Joker and Shining roles mixed into one. I agree. Both of those movies. Plus Quaid sometimes here brings back his loony-tunes Jerry Lee Lewis persona.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

I think the most shocking aspect of "The Intruder" is that wholesale steal of the ending and final line of a bigger hit thriller from years ago. They thought nobody would NOTICE?(Well, a lot of critics didn't.)

On the other hand, the "Shining" references are pretty overt, and the overall BLANK from Hell set-up is being referenced right and left(I understand that Dennis Quaid played the HERO in a similar home-ownership thriller called Cold Creek Manor or some such.)

Aside from enjoying the Quaid performance, I found "The Intruder" to be somewhat depressing. The "straight thriller" has come down to this? A generic by-the-numbers flow. Perfectly nice cinematography(we don't have "cheap, gritty thrillers" anymore.) A domestic home-based setting(bye, bye Charade.) Lack of star power(other than Quaid.)

Oh, well.

[–] swanstep (2619) 5 years ago

Somehow I completely missed the existence of The Intruder so these posts were of interest to me. When you described its 'X from Hell' thriller premise I had to smile because, much as the form invites eye-rolling, every new instance of the form always *sounds* like a nifty film idea. The premise sounds realistic, like something with echoes of real life, *and* yet it has natural possibilities for escalation & resolution in 105 mins or so. The form works! All that matters then is execution. (Compare as you do with Charade: form involves NbNW-y spies, crims, romance, lots of juggled tones from horror to slapstick; even getting basic audience buy-in without Audrey/Cary-level megastars that audiences will follow anywhere is tricky. Overall the degree of difficulty is enormous! It's no wonder we don't get lots like Charade.) Sounds like The Intruder executes middlingly. I'l probably watch it eventually.

But aren't there lots of better alternatives in the thriller/horror marketplace? For example, the last 2-4 years saw a bunch of acclaimed, classy thriller/horrors, e.g., Get Out, Babadook, The Witch, Hereditary. In 2019 we're getting the echo of that boom with all the follow-ups from those directors: Us, The Nightingale, The Lighthouse, Midsommar.

I've only had the chance to see Us so far. It's not a patch on Get Out, but still worth seeing I'd say. It sounds like Midsommar is the same sort of partial success. Anyhow, my point is that there's lots thriller-ish to look forward to/keep up with right now.

[–] swanstep (2619) 5 years ago

Oh... and more on the 'sad state of the thriller 2019': I just got around to seeing Burning (2018), one of the big S. Korea arthouse films last year. It's a slice of life in modern Seoul [with all sorts of interesting class concerns - 'Korea is full of Gatsbys' (young guys with mysterious sources of wealth) is a key line] that turns into an Antonioni/Blow Up-style metaphysical mystery with a bit of Vertigo's DNA. It's slow but rewarding, and I can't wait to rewatch. Recommended at least if you're open to a thriller where the thrill is how little you end up knowing for sure, & the chill is in how easy it is for someone to *seem* very connected these days but actually be very alone & vulnerable, able to 'disappear in a puff of smoke' (another key line from the film).

In general I approve of the mini-trend towards Antonioni-ish mysteries: new sorts of mystery & indeterminacy have turned up in recent French films like Nocturama (2016) & Personal Shopper (2016) & it's good to see films like Burning (2018) continuing these explorations.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Somehow I completely missed the existence of The Intruder so these posts were of interest to me. When you described its 'X from Hell' thriller premise I had to smile because, much as the form invites eye-rolling, every new instance of the form always *sounds* like a nifty film idea.

---

That's a good point. Its almost as surefire as the "wrong man" formula or the "they won't believe me" formula(The Lady Vanishes) in Hitchcock.

Speaking of Hitchcock, I suppose you could find Strangers on a Train to be a very early precursor to the "X" from Hell genre - er, "The Fellow Passenger on the Train from Hell?" But not really. Bruno intends to be on that train and Guy takes him pretty seriously pretty fast -- right after he kills Miriam.

Or how about Shadow of a Doubt? The Uncle From Hell.

---

The premise sounds realistic, like something with echoes of real life, *and* yet it has natural possibilities for escalation & resolution in 105 mins or so. The form works! All that matters then is execution.

---

Yes, that's true. What all of these movies are about, at heart, is what happens when we find out that someone we have allowed into our lives with the social niceties of politeness attached....proves to be mentally disturbed, impossible to detach FROM our lives. Usually violence is necessary to do so -- but only after innocent victims are killed by X from Hell and/or X from hell tries to kill the hero/heroine.

"The Intruder" flows from something somewhat queasy: Quaid considers the house to be HIS house(after all, it was in his family for generations) and as new people start to do new things to it, he gets possessive. And you can feel HIS side of it -- that's his home. Whereas the man who has bought the house eventually has to say to Quaid, "We BOUGHT this house from you....it is OUR house now." Ah, the risks of a mobile society. (Minor spoiler: we eventually learn that Quaid never WANTED to sell the house, but had to, for financial reasons.)

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

(Compare as you do with Charade: form involves NbNW-y spies, crims, romance, lots of juggled tones from horror to slapstick; even getting basic audience buy-in without Audrey/Cary-level megastars that audiences will follow anywhere is tricky. Overall the degree of difficulty is enormous! It's no wonder we don't get lots like Charade.)

---

I'm not quite sure why I leapt to Charade as a comparison. Perhaps because it has been on my mind lately(I elected to replace it with A Mad Mad World as my favorite of 1963; these little things are important in a little way.) Mainly, I think it is because as I watched "The Intruder" I felt that it is the kind of thriller that elects to "go nowhere." Less a couple of scenes in San Francisco, it "hangs around the house." Charade is set in Paris. And yes, stars matter. Charade had Cary and Audrey AND Walter and James -- all very distinctive stars , two or them(Walter and James) about to soar. With "Charade," you feel that you are going on a real adventure -- even as it is a level down from the EPIC adventure of North by Northwest(which is so much bigger than The Intruder you cant even compare.)

Of course, Hitchcock often liked his thrillers to take place "in ordinary places, to ordinary people, too." Shadow of a Doubt "hangs around the house." Psycho ("The Motel Manager From Hell?" -- nope, we don't think that) is about "workaday characters." But more often than not, Hitchcock took us to the French Riviera, Morocco, Rio, Paris, London...he worked "bigger" than "The Intruder" does.

---

Sounds like The Intruder executes middlingly. I'l probably watch it eventually.

---

I recommend it for Dennis Quaid, and for the bold-faced ripoff of ANOTHER thriller in the final two minutes. The execution? I don't think you're big on plot holes....

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

A side-bar on Dennis Quaid (because I do so love the evolution of movie stars.)

Quaid's doing insurance company commercials right now on American TV and it leads one to (1) worry about his financial health and (2) take some comfort in the fact that Quaid is still enough of a name to ANCHOR a TV commercial...as himself, and having a bit of self-mocking fun with his Nicholson grin and devilish manner.

"In the beginning," there was Another Quaid: Randy...Dennis's older brother, who broke through in Peter Bogdanovich movies(The Last Picture Show, What's Up Doc) and then hit big in "The Last Detail." In all of these movies, Randy Quaid was sold for his oversized, awkward body and his distinctively goofy looking face. It was a face you feel sorry for -- especially in The Last Detail, where his poor soul of a US Navy sailor was going to jail for 8 years for a petty crime(he took money out of the base commander's wife's charity box) and gets "the time of his life" from MP Jack Nicholson before going into the hole. I think Randy was Oscar nommed for that one.

I recall younger brother Dennis Quaid arriving with the Four Young Guys in "Breaking Away" (1979.) Of the four, Dennis was the tough, wiry one...he would do better with the ladies than Randy. But even in Breaking Away there was a little something odd to Dennis' face; it had a sort of inbred/hillbilly feature to it that was going to prevent top stardom.

But it didn't prevent some level of stardom. As the 80's moved on, Dennis Quaid aged into a certain amount of handsomeness, and he had the great smile and he had the great abs. He was the cockiest of astronauts in The Right Stuff (1983) and then in 1987 he got to be a macho hero(inside milquetoast Martin Short's body) in the Spielberg produced Inner Space AND a sexy New Orleans cop (opposite sexy Ellen Barkin) in The Big Easy.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Kevin Costner hit in 1987 too (The Untouchables, No Way Out) and was much bigger than Quaid, but Quaid carved out a second tier leading man career that lasted. I'd have to check imdb to see HOW Dennis Quaid survived, but he did. I really can't remember a lot of Dennis Quaid movies.

I do remember how, in 1994 Costner and a skeletal Quaid played Wyatt Earp and Doc Holliday, but to no avail: Kurt Russell and Val Kilmer had beaten them to it with "Tombstone" (1993) and Val's way-off-the-charts Doc Holliday overcame Quaid's starved-to-the-bone version. It was a little bit sad for Dennis Quaid, that Doc Holliday thing.

I recall that Dennis Quaid got to be the dad in the remake of Parent Trap. That put him in millions of homes on TV after theatrical.

In recent years, Quaid has been in the two "Dog's Life" tearjerkers.

And now: insurance commercials and a movie psycho(The Intruder.)

Dennis Quaid abides.

His brother Randy is rather off the grid now(and its not happy), but during the past decades he became famous as the country cousin in National Lampoon's Vacation and especially National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation...so he'll be immortal, too. And I loved Randy Quaid as a "last act villain" in the nifty John Cusack/Billy Bob Thornton crime caper "The Ice Harvest" of 2005.

[–] swanstep (2619) 5 years ago

I really can't remember a lot of Dennis Quaid movies.

The one that jumps out for me for me was his playing Julianne Moore's gay husband in Todd Haynes's excellent Far From Heaven (2003).

D. Quaid was married to Meg Ryan when she was a huge star in the '90s. Their careers have both fallen off since then but Ryan had a lot further to fall, and, with an assist from some bad cosmetic surgery choices , now feels trapped in '90s amber where Quaid does not. I'm sure he's doing fine.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

The one that jumps out for me for me was his playing Julianne Moore's gay husband in Todd Haynes's excellent Far From Heaven (2003).

---

Yes, that was a "daring" role for Quaid...in a very good movie. I actually saw it...sometimes I can go Oscar bait/indie!

---

D. Quaid was married to Meg Ryan when she was a huge star in the '90s.

--

That's right! I think they met on the Spielberg-produced/Joe Dante-directed Innerspace and for awhile there, they were a "star couple" -- though Meg ended up bigger thanks to When Harry Met Sally and Sleepless in Seattle. "The vagaries of star marriages" -- one usually ends up bigger than the other.

---

Their careers have both fallen off since then but Ryan had a lot further to fall, and, with an assist from some bad cosmetic surgery choices ,

---

Plastic surgery is such a part of Hollywood and yet -- modernly -- it sure seems to have rather instantly changed the fortunes of the WOMEN who have it (whereas Michael Douglas seemed to get away with his for a decade or so.) Meg Ryan and Geena Davis come to mind.

The other choice is to "age naturally." I think Julie Christie pulled it off. We know that Bette Davis and Joan Crawford just elected to go ahead and age...and "change types of roles."

But poor Meg. And Geena.

I think both Nicole Kidman and Renee Zellwegger had bad plastic surgeries/botox deals (Renee ended up with a new FACE) and had them reversed and less overt.

--

(Meg Ryan) now feels trapped in '90s amber where Quaid does not. I'm sure he's doing fine.

Acting careers can be unfair. Quaid's flurry of work (the dog movies, The Intruder, even the insurance commercials -- where he FEELS like a star) will keep him viable for old guy character parts as more folks join Hackman and Nicholson in retirement. Meg Ryan doesn't really have that outlet but...why not? Use the Dame Judi Dench model, Meg!

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

But aren't there lots of better alternatives in the thriller/horror marketplace?

--

Yes, there are, and you would know them, swanstep...for I know you are viewing them and I am out of the loop.

Its been ever thus for me. I spent many more decades READING about movies than SEEING movies. I recall in the 70's being well aware of movies like Autumn Sonata and Murmur of the Heart and Thieves Like Us...without ever going to see them.

Reading film periodicals then has led to reading your reports now, swanstep. I at least feel a vicarious involvement in the new batch of "horror thrillers."

---

For example, the last 2-4 years saw a bunch of acclaimed, classy thriller/horrors, e.g., Get Out, Babadook, The Witch, Hereditary. In 2019 we're getting the echo of that boom with all the follow-ups from those directors: Us, The Nightingale, The Lighthouse, Midsommar.

---

Of that group, I have only seen the famed Get Out(I thought it was...OK.) I've read a lot about Babadook, Us, Hereditary...and I'm reading a lot now about Midsommer (which reads like it has a "A Wicker Man" vibe.)

As I think we've discussed recently, while the Hitchcock thriller and the starry Charade/Arabesque/The Prize/Wait Until Dark thrillers of the 60's have disappeared, everything has morphed over the decades into the host of horror and thrillers we have today. Its not really the same , but there are certainly a host of thriller choices available. Recall also that I am more a thriller fan than a gore fan.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

---
I've only had the chance to see Us so far. It's not a patch on Get Out, but still worth seeing I'd say. It sounds like Midsommar is the same sort of partial success. Anyhow, my point is that there's lots thriller-ish to look forward to/keep up with right now.

--

The Intruder was a Redbox supermarket store selection by a companion who knows of at least my PAST liking for thrillers. I dunno if Hereditary (for one) is Redbox available. I can check it out. I've really lost track of how to ACCESS movies anymore if they aren't in my neighborhood theater. I have some streaming services now...I'll go looking.

But that's where the companion comes in: I'm not sure she can go for the gore....

By the way, when I spoke of "the sad state of the thriller 2019," perhaps I mean the mainstream American studio thriller. The Intruder isn't good, it isn't bad -- its just rather generic. (Tell ya the truth: I'm not even sure its a STUDIO thriller. Maybe its just a generic indie. Hah.)

Getting thrilled(Rear Window, NXNW, Psycho...Charade, Wait Until Dark) used to be THRILLING.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Oh... and more on the 'sad state of the thriller 2019':

---

Ha. Do I "give in"? -- the sad state of the AMERICAN STUDIO thriller. Ha.

---

I just got around to seeing Burning (2018), one of the big S. Korea arthouse films last year. It's a slice of life in modern Seoul [with all sorts of interesting class concerns - 'Korea is full of Gatsbys' (young guys with mysterious sources of wealth) is a key line] that turns into an Antonioni/Blow Up-style metaphysical mystery with a bit of Vertigo's DNA. It's slow but rewarding, and I can't wait to rewatch. Recommended at least if you're open to a thriller where the thrill is how little you end up knowing for sure, & the chill is in how easy it is for someone to *seem* very connected these days but actually be very alone & vulnerable, able to 'disappear in a puff of smoke' (another key line from the film).

--

Sounds interesting to me. Seoul is an interesting city -- about 40 miles south of the North Korean border. The Norks don't need nukes to take out Seoul...they can do it with artillery! And yet Seoul is such a high tech, glamour city on its own.

---
In general I approve of the mini-trend towards Antonioni-ish mysteries: new sorts of mystery & indeterminacy have turned up in recent French films like Nocturama (2016) & Personal Shopper (2016) & it's good to see films like Burning (2018) continuing these explorations.

---

Well...I can mainly only read about these, but you never know. I'll have time on my hands, any year now, to catch up.

[–] swanstep (2619) 5 years ago

Sounds interesting to me. Seoul is an interesting city -- about 40 miles south of the North Korean border. The Norks don't need nukes to take out Seoul...they can do it with artillery! And yet Seoul is such a high tech, glamour city on its own.

Yes! What you're effectively getting at is a big part of why S Korea is *the* big new movie success story of the new millennium. First, they're big & economically vibrant enough to make lots of films so that means that 3 or 4 keepers per year is doable. And the fact is that their 3 or 4 break outs each year range from the arthouse to the *very* mainstream. But even the most mainstream (but good) stuff gains layers from the basic Korean situation - a history of resisting being squashed and invaded by both China and Japan, and for the last 50 years having a large US presence in country. Fast buildup of wealth & tech brings incredible town/country tensions, etc.. It's a *really* interesting place & their films get all this for free as backdrop.

Burning is more down the (Vertigo, Blow Up) arthouse end of the spectrum, but, for example, in the last few years (and all on Netflix where I am) Train to Busan is a recent zombie thriller (zombie outbreak on an intercity train! - not too gory) that's utterly mainstream-thrilling, The Wailing is a ghost story of sorts, The Handmaiden is a twisting erotic thriller. These all are more flat out fun than Burning, and might be better starting places for a mixed, mainstream audience. (In fact, if its Korean and on Netflix it's almost certainly a damn good watch in my experience - I talked my ultra-mainstream brother into trying Netflix's Korean offerings and he was hooked.)

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

(In fact, if its Korean and on Netflix it's almost certainly a damn good watch in my experience - I talked my ultra-mainstream brother into trying Netflix's Korean offerings and he was hooked.)

--

Well, I got Netflix(for now.) I guess I can give it a try.

Way back in 2007 I think, I went to our local art house and saw a Korean(I think) monster movie with overtones. It was about a creature who came out of the water on dry land and attacked folks but it was about much more. Was it called "The Host"?

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

"In the beginning," there was Another Quaid: Randy...Dennis's older brother, who broke through in Peter Bogdanovich movies(The Last Picture Show, What's Up Doc) and then hit big in "The Last Detail."

---

A follow up thought on the Brothers Quaid.

Back in 1980, Walter Hill wrote-directed a movie called "The Long Riders," and that movie had a gimmick: casting "Hollywood brothers" as "real life Western Outlaw brothers." The James brothers, the Younger brothers, etc.

So Randy and Dennis shared the screen. Can't remember who they played. Stacy and James Keach shared the screen. And I think they got David, Keith, AND Robert Carradine. (Plus Christopher Guest and HIS brother as the Ford brothers as I recall.)

Its great pairing brothers like that, but its tough for the brothers to have to compete as "stars." As I recall, David Carradine(with his leftover Kung Fu charisma) and Stacy Keach(with his soon-to-be Mike Hammer macho charisma) had the most star power of all the brothers on screen. You could TELL.

I can't really remember if the Quaid brothers much broke through at all....

[–] swanstep (2619) 5 years ago

Way back in 2007 I think, I went to our local art house and saw a Korean(I think) monster movie with overtones. It was about a creature who came out of the water on dry land and attacked folks but it was about much more. Was it called "The Host"?

The Host is a perfect example of high-quality Korean mainstream film-making (with all the nifty overtones you detected - the monster is spawned by denied toxic chemical dumps from US bases, which was and is a real local grievance). The director, Bong Joon-ho's previous film had been the at least near-great Memories of Murder (2003) which was Zodiac before Zodiac. Well worth seeing.

Bong's star has faded a bit since for me... His last film was an ET-ish (with some Willy Wonka DNA) attempted crowd-pleaser called Okja for Netflix which I didn't like. And his big-budget Hollywood film, Snowpiercer w/ Cap America/Chris Evans also left me cold. His latest film, Parasite, described as a 'dark comedy thriller' sounds like a comeback after winning the Palm D'or at Cannes this year & is being released in the West in October.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

The Host is a perfect example of high-quality Korean mainstream film-making (with all the nifty overtones you detected - the monster is spawned by denied toxic chemical dumps from US bases, which was and is a real local grievance).

---

i recall that there was "more to the story" than "just a monster" and I recall the CGI-like effects to be pretty good.

It was 2007. Its a little peek into my private life that one particular past companion was big on art/indie/foreign and I probably saw movies of that ilk during that time than any other. So many that I can't really remember them.

I recall loving the premise of one film that I think was French. A woman walks into the office of a man she believes is a psychiatrist/counselor; its her first appointment with him, they have never met. But they do meet, take the first session -- and the woman pours her heart out to the counselor.

Trouble is(we find out, she doesn't know): she walked into the wrong office. He's an accountant. But he treasures being let into her "secret life" and carries on the ruse as long as he can.

All I remember is that premise. But I LOVED that premise.

And that one's from my art/foreign period, too.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

The director, Bong Joon-ho's previous film had been the at least near-great Memories of Murder (2003) which was Zodiac before Zodiac. Well worth seeing.

---

Zodiac before Zodiac. ABOUT Zodiac? Or a fictionalized, Korean killer?

---

Bong's star has faded a bit since for me... His last film was an ET-ish (with some Willy Wonka DNA) attempted crowd-pleaser called Okja for Netflix which I didn't like.

---

Sounds like he's a genre guy -- monsters, ET, Willy Wonka.

---

And his big-budget Hollywood film, Snowpiercer w/ Cap America/Chris Evans also left me cold.

---

I've at least heard of that one.

---

His latest film, Parasite, described as a 'dark comedy thriller' sounds like a comeback after winning the Palm D'or at Cannes this year & is being released in the West in October.

---

Well, he's working. The Host was 2007 and here we are in 2019...it begs the question "Will Korea finance a filmmaker over a longer period than US studios do their filmmakers?"

[–] swanstep (2619) 5 years ago

Zodiac before Zodiac. ABOUT Zodiac? Or a fictionalized, Korean killer?

A fictionalized Korea killer. It just as a very Zodiac-like feel: almost a whole generation goes by without catching the killer; the detectives' private lives fall apart under the pressure of their obsessions; as in Fincher's film, the deaths are meticulously filmed & are the stuff of a certain sort of nightmare (particularly a misty, night-time just off the shoulder of a major road as a setting).

****Will Korea finance a filmmaker over a longer period than US studios do their filmmakers?****
I think that the top 5 or so directors including Bong are all established enough as international talents that they'll always be able to get financing from somewhere for their sorts of mid-budget films.

BTW, I checked and both Burning & Train to Busan are currently on Netflix in the US (none of the other films I've mentioned appear to be). Good watching both.

[–] swanstep (2619) 5 years ago

His latest film, Parasite, described as a 'dark comedy thriller' sounds like a comeback after winning the Palm D'or at Cannes this year

I have seen Parasite (2019)... and really enjoyed it.. It's an immaculate, vicious, satire about social stratification & resentment that maybe loses something in translation (and without having first hand knowledge of Korean society). It's not quite my thing as much as Burning (2018), with which it shares much of its Seoul milieu, but it's clearly one of films of the year. Will need to rewatch to get its measure.

[–] swanstep (2619) 5 years ago

The last 2-4 years saw a bunch of acclaimed, classy thriller/horrors, e.g., Get Out, Babadook, The Witch, Hereditary. In 2019 we're getting the echo of that boom with all the follow-ups from those directors: Us, The Nightingale, The Lighthouse, Midsommar.
I've only had the chance to see Us so far. It's not a patch on Get Out, but still worth seeing I'd say. It sounds like Midsommar is the same sort of partial success.

I've seen Midsommar now and it's *very* comparable to Us: it's not the tightly focussed slam-dunk its predecessor (Hereditary) was but it's still worth watching. There's ample proof, particularly in the first 25 mins that director Ari Aster has a unique eye and editing style. He owes a lot to some of the best visual stylists & idea-merchants, Kubrick, Hitchcock, Cronenberg, Zulawski, Haneke, etc. &, at least if you're me, it's just a pleasure to be around that. I don't want to get into spoilers but Aster homes in on a lot of the weird tensions and pathologies of grad school life, and refracts those through a horror premise: Midsommar is a 'grad school, bad boyfriend, bad girlfriend break-up' movie. It's horrifying and occasionally gory but not scary. In sum, I liked Midsommar, but I'm probably the perfect audience for it. Broader audiences will probably think it could have done to lose at least 30 mins or so (and find that other broad brush criticisms hit home). Recommended then with provisos: your mileage may vary. Partial success.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

I've seen Midsommar now and it's *very* comparable to Us: it's not the tightly focussed slam-dunk its predecessor (Hereditary) was but it's still worth watching....In sum, I liked Midsommar, but I'm probably the perfect audience for it. Broader audiences will probably think it could have done to lose at least 30 mins or so (and find that other broad brush criticisms hit home). Recommended then with provisos: your mileage may vary. Partial success

---

Thank you for the review, swanstep. The poster has "trended" on the Moviechat home page a lot; that peaked my curiosity.

It remains an irony of my older age that even as "Psycho" stands as the central movie of my lifetime, I'm really not much of a horror buff. Its almost as if the now tame "Psycho" was the "outer limit' of my taste in shock and gore(and it WAS shocking and gory for about two decades, you ask me.)

Still, I managed to see Get Out and I expect I'll get around to Midsommar...which has a bit of a Wicker Man vibe, too, yes?

[–] swanstep (2619) 5 years ago

I expect I'll get around to Midsommar...which has a bit of a Wicker Man vibe, too, yes?

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Yes... The Wicker Man founds and perfects the sub-genre of 'folk horror'. Unfortunately, then, the sub-genre is so narrowly defined that it's self-spoilering in a way. If a horror-thriller movie touts itself as a folk horror then it's given away most of its plot.

---

Interesting point...The Wicker Man rather set the template ...and there are TWO Wicker Mans -- the cult 1973 good one and the evidently atrocious Nick Cage remake(poor Nick Cage, has an actor ever plummeted from bankable Oscar respect to....hackdom?...with such speed? Travolta did, but came back.)

---

There was a rather excellent horror from a few years ago that coped with this by having its sub-genre identity only emerge late in the film (reviewers had to be very careful not to give this away).

---

Well, that's one way out of it. As if a "killer mother" ala Psycho only maniftested in Act Three...

---

Midsommar leans in to its folk horror identity from its advertizing on... but escapes tedium by having this whole other level about grad school (and its weird chrysalis-stage-like character) and academia (which can feel like a strange, world-denying cult/culture/priesthood with initiation ceremonies etc.). Midsommar is actually very funny (as well as shudder-inducing) if you've been through the grad school/Academia experience yourself, but if you haven't then my guess is that mileage will vary.

---

Yes, academia can its own world. There are so many "contained worlds" within societies that I think sometimes we forget they exist...and they're WEIRD (though lucrative, often.)

--

Still, a lot of people have never even heard of The Wicker Man, let alone 'folk horror'.

---

This remains the key to so much in entertainment these days. I keep trying to avoid "get off my lawn-ism," but I remain astounded at so many in the current generation seeming to know nothing of movies made before...1999? And the year keeps shifting forward...